A Self-Attribution-Reactance Model of Recovery from Injury in Type A Individuals1

A self-attribution-reactance model of Type A behavior and medical recovery is introduced. The model proposes that Type As' bias to view themselves as causal for all outcomes makes them sensitive to events (illness, injury, or treatment) that reduce their personal control. Consequently, Type As are more likely than Type Bs to respond to such events with reactant behavior (noncompliance with treatment) in order to restore their perceptions of control and freedom. In a test of the model, 32 patients being treated for running-related injuries were assessed for Type A behavior, preference for control over and involvement with treatment, and attributions for and reactions to their injury at the beginning of treatment. The physician's ratings of progress through treatment made at the conclusion of the study served as the measure of recovery. Results supported the model in that extreme Type As were more likely than moderate Type As and Type Bs to be judged as exhibiting poor recovery. Moreover, Type As judged to have made poor progress made more extreme self-attributions and were more angry about their injuries than were Type A and B patients judged to have made good progress. The implications of the findings for promoting compliance are discussed.     

Type A behaviour pattern and assertive behaviour

The assertiveness patterns of Type A coronary-prone subjects were compared with those of Type B subjects in negative and positive situations. Type As were found to exhibit high assertiveness in both negative and positive situations. Type Bs responded as assertively as Type As in positive situations but less assertively in negative situations. The implications of the results are discussed.     

Postperformance attributions and task persistence among type A and B individuals: a clarification

We examined task persistence and postperformance attributions by Type As and Bs on tasks that varied in level of difficulty. On the basis of past research, we hypothesized that Type As would be more self-serving than Type Bs in their attributions for success and failure. We also hypothesized that task persistence would differ among Type As and Bs and would be dependent on task difficulty and perceived task diagnosticity. Type As and Bs attempted multiple sets of anagrams that were either easy or difficult. We measured persistence by the number of anagram sets attempted, and, after task performance, we assessed attributions for success and failure. Results supported both hypotheses. Type As took more credit for success than for failure, whereas Type Bs did not provide reliably different attributions for success and failure. Furthermore, Type As persisted longer at the task when it was difficult and when it was viewed as relatively low in information value. Type Bs persisted longer at the task when it was difficult but viewed as relatively high in information value. Results are discussed in the context of current debates regarding the responses of Type As and Bs to performance settings.     

Type A behavior, need for control, and reactions to group participation

The present study examines the behavior of Type A coronary-prone subjects in group problem-solving sessions. Subjects discuss possible solutions to two problems in same-sex groups containing both Type As and Bs. As are much more likely than Bs to be seen as leaders and are rarely nominated as the least helpful member. Although A and B leaders are both seen as moderately likeable, A leaders' problem solutions are rated as lower in quality. Manipulations of problem importance and incentive for good solutions have similar effects on As and Bs. The results are discussed as being generally consistent with the proposal that Type As are primarily motivated by a need for control. Some indirect support is obtained for the idea that As are more susceptible than Bs to learned helplessness.     

The Type A behaviour pattern,induced mood,and the illusion of control

This study investigated the hypothesis that mood moderates the illusion of control among Type As and Bs. A facial positioning procedure was used to induce either positive, negative, or neutral moods in Type As and Bs during a control judgment task where no objective control was possible. Type Bs induced to experience a positive mood perceived greater control than did Type Bs experiencing a negative mood. There was no effect of induced mood on judged control for Type As.     

Self-schematic representation of the type A and B behavior patterns

Past research has established clear behavioral differences between Type A and B individuals. The purpose of our research was to examine how these behavioral differences are represented in the self-definitions of Type As and Bs. We investigated the existence of Type A and B self-schemata by using two tasks designed to measure the influence of these hypothetical structures on speed of processing and memory interference. During an initial task, Type As and Bs made self-relevant decisions (like me, not like me) in response to trait adjectives previously scaled as Type A, Type B, or neutral in content. Reaction times for the decisions were measured, and results indicated that both Type As and Bs made faster decisions for schema-compatible responses than for schema-incompatible responses. On a second task, Type As and Bs were tested for recognition memory after they attempted to memorize half of the aforementioned trait list. Memory errors were examined and indicated that Type As and Bs made more errors that were compatible with their respective self-schemata. Taken together, these results indicate that a Type A and B distinction forms a reliable organizing framework for the self-definitions of Type As and Bs. The existence of stable cognitive structures that parallel the behavioral differences between Type As and Bs has important implications for both theory and application.     

Stress effects on affiliation preferences among subjects possessing the type A coronary-prone behavior pattern

An experiment tested the hypothesis that when subjects who display the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern are placed under stress, they prefer to wait for the stressful event with others, but desire to work under stress alone. One half of 25 Type A and 25 Type B (non-coronary-prone) subjects were told that they would receive painful electric shock while working on a mental task, while the other one half were told that they would receive subliminal stimulation. Both groups were then given the choice of waiting for the event with others or alone and the choice of working on the task alone, in the company of others, or in a leader-directed group. The results showed that Type As relative to Type Bs tended to wait in the company of others regardless of threat level, but displayed a marked preference to work alone under high threat. This decision to work alone was not influenced by waiting preference. Subsequent correlational studies showed that coronary patients (n = 40) reported a greater preference for working alone when under pressure than matched controls (n = 40), as did Type A college students (77% vs. 14% for Type Bs) when asked their preference within the context of the structured interview that is used to assess the Type A pattern. The significance of the findings for increasing the understanding of affiliative preferences and coronary-prone behavior are discussed.     

The Time-Urgency Component of the Type A Behavior Pattern: Time Pressure and Performance1

We investigated the effects of time pressure on the performance of Type A and Type B individuals. We predicted that Type As would perform more poorly than Type Bs on an anagram task during a timed condition, but not during an untimed condition. Subjects were 40 female undergraduates and the Jenkins Activity Survey was used to measure Type A behavior. The results confirmed our hypothesis. Type As made significantly more errors than Type Bs when timed, but not when untimed. Implications of these findings and the time-urgency component of the Type A behavior pattern are discussed.     

Type A behavior and reminiscence in college undergraduates

This study represents the first empirical test of Friedman and Ulmer's (1984. Treating Type A behavior and your heart. New York: Fawcett) clinical observation that deficits in the capacity to reminisce about pleasant past events are among the most pervasive and dysfunctional correlates of Type A behavior. Type A (N = 79) and B (N = 109) college undergraduates completed a questionnaire assessing the frequency, content, style, and consequences of their reminiscence about positive past experiences. Findings supported two hypotheses: relative to Type Bs, Type As were less likely to report that they consciously look back on positive events after these events are over in order to store details for later recall, and were more likely to report that they typically reminisce about past achievements. Contradicting Friedman and Ulmer's observations, however, there were no significant A/B differences in the reported frequency, style, or consequences of recalling positive memories. The findings are discussed in terms of components of Type A behavior, such as competitive achievement-striving and self-esteem enhancement, that may make Type As (a) less likely to store, but not to recall, positive memories and (b) particularly likely to reminisce about personal accomplishments. Plausible reasons for the relative lack of support for Friedman and Ulmer's hypotheses are discussed in the context of directions for future research.     

Actual and Perceived Group Performance as a Function of Group Composition: The Moderating Role of the Type A and B Behavior Patterns1

This study examined the moderating influence of the Type A and B behavior patterns on group performance and group functioning. Type As and Bs were assigned to different roles in groups given the task of deciding what items to transfer from a sinking ship to a life raft. Results indicated that groups with Type A leaders in conflict with a Type A group member arrived at relatively poor decisions. Type A leaders, however, also were perceived by their groups to be more competent than were Type B leaders. These results suggested that the Type A behavior pattern can have the paradoxical effects of hindering group problem-solving and of leading others to view Type As as more competent than Type Bs because of their active dynamic style.     

Perceived coercion, resistance to persuasion, and the Type A behavior pattern

Three studies are reported, which tested the notion that persons possessing the Type A “coronary-prone” behavior pattern would be more susceptible to the experience of psychological reactance than would Type Bs, i.e., persons without that pattern. In Experiment 1, subjects exposed to a persuasive communication that was either low or high in coerciveness rated the degree of coercive intent behind the communication. Type As perceived greater coerciveness overall than Type Bs, a finding that was most reliable in the low coercion condition. In Experiment 2, subjects' postcommunication opinions were assessed, so that resistance to persuasion could be measured. A gender difference within Pattern A emerged from this study. Male Type As resisted the persuasion attempt to an equivalent degree whether it was low or high in coerciveness; female Type As displayed comparable resistance in the low coercion condition, but tended to be even more resistant in the high coercion condition. In contrast, both male and female Type Bs displayed persuasion in the low coercion condition, and resisted (to a degree comparable to Type As) in the high coercion condition. Experiment 3 further investigated resistance to persuasion among females, using a different issue for the persuasion attempt. Type A women again resisted more in the high coercion than the low coercion condition. Type B women displayed no evidence of resistance in either condition. Discussion centers on the observed gender difference and the possible theoretical importance of the notion that Type As perceive threat at lower objective levels than do Type Bs.     

Preference for control and the coronary-prone behavior pattern: "I'd rather do it myself"

We explored differential preference for control among Type A and Type B individuals. Forty-six subjects were threatened with an aversive event (loud noise) and were allowed to choose whether to turn off the noise themselves or to yield control to another (more competent) individual. The results showed that Type B subjects (regardless of sex) tended to relinquish control to their more competent confederates and thus reduce the aversive stimulus, whereas the choice behavior of Type As was less clear. In addition, although female subjects tended to yield control, male subjects were more inclined to retain it. Because the willingness to yield control in general appears to be stronger in women than in men, the behavior observed in Type As may be partly moderated by the subject's sex. Although there were suggestive trends in the data, the central psychological features of the Type A pattern remain ambiguous and await studies in which researchers explore these effects, using a variety of situations and larger sample sizes.     

The type A behavior pattern, physical fitness, and psychophysiological reactivity

Joint effects of the Type A behavior pattern and aerobic fitness were examined with regard to heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) changes elicited by laboratory challenges. Sixty-one college students were classified as Type A or B using the Structured Interview (SI), and as physically fit or sedentary using self-reports of activity level and estimated VO2max values obtained on a step test. Subjects were challenged with the SI, presentation of a snake, mental arithmetic, a cold pressor task, and two competitive card games. Significant A-B differences were found only on the SI and the card games. During the SI: As displayed significantly greater BP increases than Bs; sedentary subjects showed greater BP increases than fit subjects; and sedentary As revealed greater BP increases than either fit As, fit Bs, or sedentary Bs. In contrast, during the competitive games, physically fit As showed reliably greater BP increases than either sedentary As, sedentary Bs, or fit Bs. Since the physically fit subjects were almost exclusively varsity athletes and the sedentary subjects were college students who reported following a sedentary lifestyle, the differences between sedentary and fit groups may have been due to differences in aerobic fitness or to the improved ability of competitive athletes or those engaged in fitness training to match arousal level to task requirements.     

Type A personality, self-control, and vulnerability to stress

Type A behavior (hard-driving, competitive, time-urgent, hostile-irritable) has been linked to high stress levels and the risk of eventual cardiovascular problems (i.e., coronary heart disease, CHD). However, this pattern of behavior closely resembles the traditional masculine instrumental (goal-oriented) orientation, and, if kept within limits, may be viewed as adaptive in success-oriented, middle-class college students. Hypothetically then, Type A behavior may be displayed by a broad group of individuals, and only in those cases when it is allowed to reach extreme proportions is stress sufficient enough to confer risk. This article considers two lines of reasoning. Is greater self-control required for college women to be Type As, because it involves crossing into traditional male role behavior? Type A women displayed significantly better self-control then Type B women; the opposite result was disclosed for college men with Type As displaying poorer self-control than Type Bs. The question of whether risk-conferring Type A behavior would result from poorer self-control was answered in the affirmative. Self-control assumed moderator status; poorer self-control in both male and female Type As was associated with high levels of day-to-day stress relative to Type As with better self-control. Self-control did not influence stress level in Type Bs. This moderator effect suggests that only Type As who cannot contain their behavior within adaptive limits will be vulnerable to excessive stress and at risk for CHD.     

Type A behavior pattern and self-evaluation of abilities: empirical tests of the self-appraisal model

The self-appraisal model proposes that Type A behavior reflects active attempts to generate diagnostic information about abilities, particularly in situations that evoke high uncertainty. In Study 1, subjects were provided feedback indicating high or low uncertainty about underlying abilities in two domains. When subjects were more uncertain of their ability in one domain than in the other, Jenkins-Activity-Survey-defined Type As (but not Type Bs) subsequently constructed tests that were biased to assess the more uncertain domain. Study 2 examined postfailure performance. The model holds that Type As perform poorly because they suspend information gathering when faced with evidence that requisite abilities are absent. Results indicated that deficits emerged only if Type As believed that a second task assessed the same abilities as the initial task on which they failed. A final study examined social comparison among Type As and Bs. Results indicated that Type As engaged in social comparison to obtain diagnostic information, primarily when they were uncertain of their ability levels.     

Relinquishment of control and the type A behavior pattern: the role of performance evaluation

We investigated the role of information processing in the control relinquishment decisions of Type As and Bs. Pairs of subjects worked independently on a task and received feedback indicating that their partner had performed at a comparable or superior level. On a second task, subjects combined their efforts and made decisions concerning who would work on different parts of that task. One third of the subjects made this decision before completing an evaluation of the initial performances. Another third completed the evaluation without knowing that they would subsequently make a control decision. The final third of the subjects completed their evaluations knowing that a control decision would follow. Results indicated that when the evaluations were completed last, or when the evaluations were completed first but without knowledge of the impending decision, Type As relinquished less control to a superior partner than did Type Bs. When the evaluations were completed with knowledge of an impending control decision, Type As and Bs did not differ in their decisions. These results suggest that under certain conditions, Type As use an automatic or mindless decision style with potentially maladaptive consequences.     

Type A behavior, age, and psychological well-being

We investigated psychological well-being among Type A and B individuals across the age span. We hypothesized that the hard-driving, achievement-oriented lifestyle exhibited by Type As would be adaptive in younger age groups, but would lead to lower well-being in later life because of increased limitations on the range and level of one's activities. By contrast, the more relaxed, easygoing style of the Type B matches better the slower pace of old age, but is not as conducive to success in younger age groups. Thus we expected older Type Bs more than younger Type Bs to exhibit greater well-being. Results confirmed these hypotheses, but indicated that psychological differences may be mediated in part by differences in physical well-being. Furthermore, experience with life events, and the structure and function of social networks, may contribute to the differences in well-being.     

Attributional style and the type A coronary-prone behavior pattern

The present two studies examined the attributional styles of Type A and B individuals. Past research suggests that Type A's exhibit greater performance deficits than Type B's following exposure to extended, salient uncontrollable stimuli. The reformulated learned helplessness model suggests that individuals most prone to such performance deficits should exhibit an attributional style characterized by internal, stable, and global attributions for negative outcomes, but external, unstable, and specific attributions for positive outcomes. However, a self-esteem protection explanation of learned helplessness findings predicts an opposite, self-serving attributional style. Results from both studies indicated that Type A's are more self-serving than Type B's in their attributions for positive and negative outcomes.     

Enhancing the prediction of self-handicapping

Levels of test anxiety, Type A and Type B coronary-prone behavior, fear of failure, and covert self-esteem were studied as predictors of self-handicapping performance attributions for college women who were placed in either a high- (N = 49) or low- (N = 49) evaluative test or task situation. We hypothesized that test anxiety. Type A or Type B level, and their interaction would account for reliable variance in the prediction of self-handicapping. However, we also theorized that underlying high fear of failure and low covert self-esteem would explain the self-handicapping claims of test-anxious and Type A subjects. The results indicated that only high levels of test anxiety and high levels of covert self-esteem were related to women's self-handicapping attributions.